Wednesday, June 25, 2008

"Down with atheist values"

Predictably, religious leaders in Kerala have got their knickers in a knot over the contents of a school textbook that apparently “tries to inject atheist values into young minds”. And why? Well, because the textbook 1) encourages children not to flaunt their religion anywhere, 2) asks rhetorical questions such as “which religion would be worst hit in the event of a drinking water crisis, epidemic or earthquake?”, and 3) includes a story about parents telling a school headmaster that their child will be allowed to choose his own religion when he grows up.

Personally I’m impressed by this textbook – it makes a heck of a lot more sense than most of the ones I grew up with (which admittedly isn’t saying much; I did Commerce and Accounts in 10+2). But I can’t understand what the protesters are so vigorously objecting to. Let’s momentarily forget the whole hyper-sensitive religious-irreligious divide and simply examine each point on its own merits.

Point one. I propose that it makes perfect sense to ask children not to go about flaunting their religion. Unless you’re a closet child-hater who wants to see younglings killing each other in riots (since we all know what the eventual consequences of flaunting can be). I say let the poor dears grow up, suffer through at least 12 years of formal education and then kill each other in riots. It should be an informed adult choice.

Point two. The implicit answer to the question asked in the textbook is that all religions would be equally badly hit in most such cases: natural calamities don’t make the distinctions that human beings do. In my view, the question is a sensitive and genuinely secular one that has the good sense to place basic humanity over religion. It’s also a fine counterpoint to the vile suggestions often made by people looking to promote their own agendas – that such-and-such disaster was “God’s way of punishing the wicked” (for more on that, see this post by Amit).

But point three is the one I’m most interested in. In The God Delusion, a book that is much more temperate and restrained in tone than its reputation suggests, the one time Richard Dawkins gets really angry is when he discusses the near-universal practice of labeling children with the religion of their parents; he points out that in an ideal world there would be no such thing as “a Christian child” or “a Hindu child”, just as there is no such thing as a Marxist or Libertarian child. The idea might instinctively make many people uncomfortable, but think about this: though most of us associate the term “child abuse” with sexual abuse or violence, it basically applies to any situation where children are attributed motivations or emotions (or expected to display behaviour) that they are too young to understand the implications of. Why should religion be given a green chit in this context?

(It’s important to note that in the story provided in the textbook, we are not told the child’s birth-religion. If it had been specified that he was from a Muslim or Hindu or Christian family, it would be possible to see the story as having a hidden, proselytizing agenda or displaying prejudice against a particular faith. But that isn’t the case here.)

Speaking pragmatically, I know that in the real world it’s futile to expect most parents to be so liberal – too many people want their children to be miniature versions of themselves, complete with all their beliefs and sacred cows neatly preserved and passed down till Kingdom (or Oblivion) Come. But I wish more parents – even the ones who shudder at the dirty word “atheist” – could see that there is merit in at least some atheist values.

very well written post.... i agree with most of what u have written, the only point i have is that a child is brought religion less who will he ever be able to choose anyone... the comparison that is made with being liberal and doesnt really hold good as its more a way of thinking than religion is... (thought ideally it should be)

also "too many people want their children to be miniature versions of themselves" doesnt this apply to atheists too :)

Shashi: that's why I commented only on the textbook passages that I thought were sensible on their own terms - not on the political stuff, which I don't understand all of anyway, or on possible ulterior motives.

I agree with Monika's pragmatic concerns......things like religion are usually hammered into children by the parents......I cannot realistically imagine a situation in which a 12 year-old suddenly starts going to church or praying to Lord Krishna.....in any case , religion is basically a choice of myth.....how is one supposed to make an informed choice....that too 12 year olds????

Rahul, Aditya: in my view, the decision facing a child when he grows up isn't which religion (or which set of Gods) to plumb for - it's deciding whether or not he believes in a generic higher power. But yes, I've pointed out the pragmatic concerns myself.

This book doesn't sound to be atheistic at all. It rather appears to be secular and not just secular in the European sense but in the Indian sense as in deeming all religions equal. There's no reason why textbooks shouldn't teach something like this. Our Constitution says the same thing after all, which is essentially live and let live.

There is much more to this contorversy. People who are involved in agitations are Congress, Church and the mosque. Of these 3 leave congress, they are just creating a ruckus seeing the forthcoming elections. After all the passage in the text book was a taken from a Nehru's book.

The interest of the church and mosque is not exactly the religion or the atheistic values this book propogates. It is just business, if you look at kerala, you will find that kerala has an excellent education system backed by the government. The goverment schools are great, sometimes even over shadow private schools in terms of results. Churchh and Mosque with their minority status have capitalized much in the educations system by running private schools. this is an easy money minting venture, they know that.this agiitation is a mere ploy by the vile church to undermine and torpedo an excellent goverment run education system in kerala. They want to destroy this fabric and take over the education system, squeeze the maximum profit out of it.Notable is that none of these agitating organizations have not approached the court to check the book as they know that their argument will be comprehensively over ruled by the judiciary. this is a criminal,vile and vicious attack on the secular fabric of kerala.Left's tenure this time around is a disastrous one, this text book is one of the very few good things they have done this time.If you check history,this very church has played a crucial role in toppling the first EMS Nampoodippad Govt which came in 1957. They are gearing up to do the same in Kerala again, this time it is for profits, the filthy money they want to grab from the education sector.I suppose it is the duty of the civil society in India to support the Kerala goverment and move ahead with the text book. People in kerala over ruled these churches and mosques when they gave an overwhelming madate to the left in the last elections.Church is simply trying to stirr up some controversy.

I have downloaded this book and read it fully.There are portions which I feel are unwanted and has a leftist inclination.I am NOT referring to the the portion mentioned in this post.You may read my comment(#16) on this book at http://snipurl.com/2s10y

This issue on atheism has been created with various motives by various groups(Congress,BJP,Religous leaders)

Yes, as mentioned school education system in Kerala is good thanks to the efforts of religious parties and governments.

While I agree that kids, in theory, should be brought up religion-free and allowed to choose; I don't think this is practical. Contrary to what you say, I would argue that indeed many children are brought up as a Libertarian or Marxist (or gasp! Capitalist -- I mean, look around you): there are very few (very few) parents who can bring up their kids completely free of their own leanings. Nor is it necessarily a bad thing for kids to be influenced by their parents' value system. There are of course lines and boundaries that are frequently crossed, but there are also cases where kids reject many things when they grow up: diet, dress, religion, political leanings.

This is not to say that I am opposed to the book, not at all, I oppose the religious leaders vehemently.

I am mainly opposed to the tone of the second half of your piece. And yes, that has to do with a mention of Dawkins. I am a student of the history and philosophy of science, and the tone that some scientists take in dismissing religion outright is not justified, particularly given the rocky history of science. (See: Neitzsche on how new dogmas can replace old dogmas.)

While I agree that kids, in theory, should be brought up religion-free and allowed to choose; I don't think this is practical.

Udayan: so where am I arguing otherwise?

Personally I think it's a pity that you bristle at the mere mention of Dawkins. And while I understand that new dogmas can replace old dogmas, I don't think there is the slightest parity between religious fundamentalism and the so-called "atheist fundamentalism" that some people like to bring up in these discussions.

I think I somewhat misunderstood your point about the parents-kids. My apologies.

The new dogma is meant to indict science (viz. Neitzsche).

Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris, it is their tone and general antipathy to religion that I abhor. I personally felt that "The God Delusion" was a badly written book (on purely aesthetic/writing terms). (Not so Hitchens, who is extremely articulate and writes extremely well.)

It is really surprising about Dawkins, because his biological writing is very good. (And I personally am very interested in memes.) I think my point in Dawkins' case is that his vehemence regarding the issue effects his ability to articulate in that book. (You obviously disagree with that because you cited, so presumably you liked the book.)

My concern is that by taking a "anti-religion" stand, no conversation at all is happening, but an argument. I am more agnostic and like to talk to everyone without spite and bile involved. Such as Michael Krasny: http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Envy-Agnostics-Michael-Krasny/dp/1577319125

I am more agnostic and like to talk to everyone without spite and bile involved.

Udayan: Fair enough, and of course it's very desirable to be able to discuss things without spite and bile (though in my personal experience, strongly religious people are the ones who make this very difficult to do). But I hope you're not suggesting that being atheist is incompatible with having a civilised conversation. I'm an atheist myself (defining atheism simply as an absence of belief in God) but I'm perfectly willing to talk about these things with believers (such as my wife and mother).

And again, I don't think either Dawkins or Hitchens (and most definitely not Sam Harris!) is anywhere near as vehement as you think they are. The problem arises when people take it as a given that Religion is deserving of special respect and privileges - in that case, even a moderately critical discussion can seem like a vehement or aggressive attack.

I am not saying that about atheists in general at all. (And certainly not you.)

But I do beg to differ about Sam Harris. Moreover, I am really (really) concerned about a dogmatic belief in science is replacing (in this century and the last) the same things that the unholy trinity is complaining/critiquing about the religious establishment. (My basis and further discussion is probably the subject of a future book at some point; but as I said earlier the history and philosophy of science is a good starting point. I can also discuss via email, personally, some of the points; I think that stuff is out of the scope of this discussion here. I don't want to swamp your blog post. :) )

I am much more willing to read Dennett on these topics, because he is more respectful of religious establishments in general. There is a tendency in the unholy trinity's rhetoric to ignore what good there could be in religion; most particularly (and most tellingly) ignoring eastern religions, and ignoring a general spirituality over "religion."

Dennett again talks also about why religion is there in the first place, providing evolutionary hypotheses, social reasons vs. the (seeming) ridicule of the unholy trinity.

Lastly, (at least for tonight :) ) the agnostic view stems from: well, there is no conclusive evidence on either side.

Udayan: interesting discussion. I haven't read much of Dennett yet, but some others who have tell me that he is more strident than even Hitchens. And Sam Harris to me has always seemed a very nuanced writer and speaker (based on some videos I've seen of his speeches and discussions - I once saw him being ridiculously patient with Deepak Chopra, in a situation where I would simply have imploded or left the room). He also has a regard for (as well as personal experience of) Eastern spirituality.

I don't think anyone in the "unholy trinity" ignores what good there can be in religion - but Dawkins and Hitchens at least have never shied away from pointing out that religious faith, by its very nature, is highly susceptible to being used harmfully. And I agree with this. Personally I find it very naive when I hear that terrorists/aggressive religious leaders are "distorting" or "misinterpreting" religion. It seems to me that if in the first place you have beliefs that are based on the idea of a sentient, all-powerful higher power who monitors all our thoughts and actions, it's a bit silly to speak of "distorting" these beliefs - they are ludicrous enough to begin with. Once you've chosen to believe such fantasies, why exactly is it so unreasonable to believe that your personal God wants you to destroy anyone who follows a different faith?

the agnostic view stems from: well, there is no conclusive evidence on either side.

Well, if that's all there is to it, I guess I'm agnostic too! (Which means I'm also "agnostic" about fairies, invisible pink unicorns, the Faraway Tree, Middle Earth, Harry Potter and so on.) But I think my definitions might be a little different.

Its a very interesting thing to note that a textbook actually had these facts. Its sad that there was an argument against it though! I don't find anything irreligious in it. It just talks more rationally than, well.....

"The problem arises when people take it as a given that Religion is deserving of special respect and privileges - in that case, even a moderately critical discussion can seem like a vehement or aggressive attack."

That's it. You've hit the nail on the head. Very few people understand it. I remember when once as a kid (not so much of a kid actually; 15 years old) I was asked to apologise because I had said something to the effect that 'I am not inclined to participate in poojas'. I didn't even know who I was apologising to! The relative, who (with delicate sensibilities) or some 'higher power'.